“Revenge porn” suit targets generic porn sites, Web hosts

Woman sues ex-boyfriend and four sites that allegedly hosted her nude pictures.

A Florida woman who said her ex-boyfriend uploaded compromising pictures of her to various websites has filed a lawsuit against numerous parties connected to her plight. It's the second well-publicized lawsuit fighting back against "revenge porn" sites.

Like the first lawsuit, it seems to be taking a broad, confused view of who's responsible. The lawsuit not only names the woman's ex-boyfriend, but also four websites she says hosted the pictures—and even their Web hosting companies.

Plaintiff Holly Jacobs says that her ex, Ryan Seay, "took, appropriated, or otherwise obtained pornographic images" of Jacobs while they were dating. After the relationship went sour, Seay allegedly "began publishing pornographic photographs and video of the plaintiff as well as plaintiff's name, occupation, details about her schedule, and other personal and private facts about the plaintiff on various websites."

Jacobs describes the defendant websites—sextingpics.com, anonib.com, pinkmeth.tv, and xhamster.com—as "revenge pornography" sites that "traffic in pornographic photographs of young women and children as well as private facts and details of the victims." But looking at the sites, one gets a rather different impression.

XHamster appears to be a generic website for user-submitted pornography. Its "about us" page states that "we created a perfect platform for users to share their own amateur content and for producers to advertise their professional works." We didn't see any sign that the site was geared toward revenge pornography. AnonIB appears to be a 4chan-style site where anyone can post images anonymously. Much of the content is pornographic but it doesn't seem to focus on "revenge porn." Sextingpics does appear to be a "revenge porn" site, and pinkmeth.tv appears to have gone offline.

Jacobs goes on to name the companies that provide hosting services to these four sites as defendants, but the plaintiffs may have trouble winning against Web hosts. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives hosting companies broad immunity for the content posted by their customers. The websites themselves may also enjoy immunity under Section 230 depending on how actively they curated the content submitted by users

"The legal question isn't close," legal scholar Eric Goldman told us in January. He was commenting on another revenge porn case where the plaintiff named GoDaddy, which provided hosting for a pornographic website, as a defendant. GoDaddy may eventually prevail on the Section 230 question, but according to Beaumont Enterprise, a Texas judge refused to dismiss GoDaddy from the lawsuit last month.

"After reading the authorities presented to the court and considering the arguments of counsel, it is my opinion that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied at this time," the judge wrote.

Jacobs accuses all of the defendants of invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private facts, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She seeks an injunction against continued distribution of the compromising images and possibly monetary damages.

The lawsuit is part of a broader campaign to shut down revenge porn sites. Jacobs is the founder of a group called End Revenge Porn. She and other activists are lobbying Florida lawmakers to pass legislation that would make it a felony to post nude photos or videos along with identifying information to "a social networking service or any other website."

181 Reader Comments

Eh, just wait until Google Glass is widespread and worn like normal glasses. Then there will be so much of this stuff out there that any individual person's pics will just get lost in the constant stream.

See also: If you don't want people harassing you, don't give anyone your number. If you don't want people stalking you, don't let them know anything about you. Etc.

People have a right to share private things with an expectation of privacy. Breaking trust can be actionable if it causes enough harm, and should be in this case, as long as nudity and porn are still seen negatively by large parts of society.

Because voluntarily giving someone compromising photos of yourself and then burning your bridges with them is clearly comparable to being the random victim of a terrorist attack.

So if you, while in a relationship, voluntarily gave/posed for photos with your SO, are you then stuck with that person forever? Or at least until you can perform the digital equivalent of burning the negatives?

Because voluntarily giving someone compromising photos of yourself and then burning your bridges with them is clearly comparable to being the random victim of a terrorist attack.

Well, by that logic you could argue that American citizens voting for governments that employ violence abroad are naive not to expect retribution from aggrieved parties. But I don't want to go back and forth about something that will probably rapidly become rather distasteful. My point is, just because a woman's body is involved, it's not suddenly reasonable to blame the victim for the obviously scumbaggy behavior of somebody else.

Because voluntarily giving someone compromising photos of yourself and then burning your bridges with them is clearly comparable to being the random victim of a terrorist attack.

So a woman who dares to break up with a guy is fair game for having her private pictures plastered all over the internet?

I'm a man -- and I wouldn't let any pictures be taken of me that it would mortify me to have made public. IMO, it's common sense. I don't think the gender of the people involved has anything to do with it.

The simple fact is that there is only one way to be sure your current SO isn't going to do something nasty with the nudie pics (or vids) you let them take -- and that's to not let them take any.

No one gets any judgement from me for making different choices than mine would be on this, and I think there's nothing wrong with bringing charges against someone who releases such things without permission.

On the other hand, the moment you make that kind of photo or video, there is a non-zero risk that it will wind up on the internet somehow, someday. This is a fact, and one that seems self-evident to me.

I'm a man -- and I wouldn't let any pictures be taken of me that it would mortify me to have made public. IMO, it's common sense. I don't think the gender of the people involved has nothing to do with it.

The simple fact is that there is only one way to be sure your current SO isn't going to do something nasty with the nudie pics (or vids) you let them take -- and that's to not let them take any.

No one gets any judgement from me for making different choices than mine would be on this, and I think there's nothing wrong with bringing charges against someone who releases such things without permission.

On the other hand, the moment you make that kind of photo or video, there is a non-zero risk that it will wind up on the internet somehow, someday. This is a fact, and one that seems self-evident to me.

Thank you for saying what I meant so much more elegantly that I did. I'm not saying that what this guy did was ethically justifiable by any stretch of the imagination, just that it is not, strictly speaking, illegal.

An analogy: If you told a friend that you were a drug dealer, and then they later turned you in to the police, the courts would not care one iota that you had an "expectation of privacy" when you confessed to that friend. Yes, your "friend" is a jerk for ratting you out, but you're still an idiot for telling them in the first place.

There is a difference between being to blame and your actions making something more likely.

Smoke and are you to blame for getting cancer (or giving it to someone). Not really but you made it more likely.

Drive and are you to blame for giving people breathing difficulties. Not really, but you made it more likely.

Take nude pics and they get leaked. Are you to blame. No, not unless you leaked them but you made it more likely since you can't leak something which doesn't exist.

Walk around around alone at night in almost no clothes. You're absolutely not to blame if you're assaulted or raped, but you are increasing your risk.

Do people just not understand that the world is horrible and full of horrible people and that it's sensible to take mitigating actions to reduce your risk of something unpleasant happening? I don't think the victim is ever* to blame for the evil actions of the other but that doesn't mean it's victim blaming to suggest practical ways to minimise the possibility of such evil actions being possible.

*except in cases where both parties may be partial victims, e.g. where a blackmailer is killed by their target, etc.

I'm a man -- and I wouldn't let any pictures be taken of me that it would mortify me to have made public. IMO, it's common sense. I don't think the gender of the people involved has nothing to do with it.

The simple fact is that there is only one way to be sure your current SO isn't going to do something nasty with the nudie pics (or vids) you let them take -- and that's to not let them take any.

No one gets any judgement from me for making different choices than mine would be on this, and I think there's nothing wrong with bringing charges against someone who releases such things without permission.

On the other hand, the moment you make that kind of photo or video, there is a non-zero risk that it will wind up on the internet somehow, someday. This is a fact, and one that seems self-evident to me.

Thank you for saying what I meant so much more elegantly that I did. I'm not saying that what this guy did was ethically justifiable by any stretch of the imagination, just that it is not, strictly speaking, illegal.

An analogy: If you told a friend that you were a drug dealer, and then they later turned you in to the police, the courts would not care one iota that you had an "expectation of privacy" when you confessed to that friend. Yes, your "friend" is a jerk for ratting you out, but you're still an idiot for telling them in the first place.

Because voluntarily giving someone compromising photos of yourself and then burning your bridges with them is clearly comparable to being the random victim of a terrorist attack.

So a woman who dares to break up with a guy is fair game for having her private pictures plastered all over the internet?

I'm a man -- and I wouldn't let any pictures be taken of me that it would mortify me to have made public. IMO, it's common sense. I don't think the gender of the people involved has nothing to do with it.

The simple fact is that there is only one way to be sure your current SO isn't going to do something nasty with the nudie pics (or vids) you let them take -- and that's to not let them take any.

No one gets any judgement from me for making different choices than mine would be on this, and I think there's nothing wrong with bringing charges against someone who releases such things without permission.

On the other hand, the moment you make that kind of photo or video, there is a non-zero risk that it will wind up on the internet somehow, someday. This is a fact, and one that seems self-evident to me.

I didn't say posing for nude pictures is a smart idea, but it's a fact of human nature that people do things for people they love that aren't always the wisest thing to do. Saying it's ok to post them because the person broke up with you, like the OP claims, is just wrong.

Because voluntarily giving someone compromising photos of yourself and then burning your bridges with them is clearly comparable to being the random victim of a terrorist attack.

So a woman who dares to break up with a guy is fair game for having her private pictures plastered all over the internet?

I'm a man -- and I wouldn't let any pictures be taken of me that it would mortify me to have made public. IMO, it's common sense. I don't think the gender of the people involved has nothing to do with it.

The simple fact is that there is only one way to be sure your current SO isn't going to do something nasty with the nudie pics (or vids) you let them take -- and that's to not let them take any.

No one gets any judgement from me for making different choices than mine would be on this, and I think there's nothing wrong with bringing charges against someone who releases such things without permission.

On the other hand, the moment you make that kind of photo or video, there is a non-zero risk that it will wind up on the internet somehow, someday. This is a fact, and one that seems self-evident to me.

This is not an unreasonable position.

It's entirely possible to say that Action A is a "bad idea," while still acknowledging that Action B (which takes advantage of the foolishness of Action A) can or should still be illegal or actionable.

The only problem I have with this position is that, in general, the acknowledgement of the foolishness of Action A will bring people out of the woodwork who will then use that foolishness to blame the victim, and excuse Action B.

If I visit an ATM in a bad part of town, and walk around flashing a fistful of cash, that is a bad idea. That does not excuse somebody for robbing me.

If I wear a short skirt and get wasted enough to pass out at a frat party, that is a bad idea. That does not excuse somebody for raping me.

If I allow somebody to take pictures with an expectation of privacy, that is a bad idea. That does not excuse them for posting them all over the internet.

Just because it's easy to do, and just because I know it would be easy to do, does not mean doing it is okay. Nor does it mean it can not or should not be actionable, or even illegal. Victim-blaming is bullshit.

EDIT: Note that I am not equating the three actions. That is not the point of the analogy. The severity of Action B, and the repercussions to whoever takes Action B, can and obviously should vary.

I didn't say posing for nude pictures is a smart idea, but it's a fact of human nature that people do things for people they love that aren't always the wisest thing to do. Saying it's ok to post them because the person broke up with you, like the OP claims, is just wrong.

You seem to be arguing against a strawman here. No one said that what this guy did was "ok," only that trying to play this woman off as a bearing no responsibility whatsoever for what happened is misrepresenting the situation.

Edit: Okay yes, she is in fact an "innocent victim." That was poor word choice on my part and I apologize.

I'm a man -- and I wouldn't let any pictures be taken of me that it would mortify me to have made public. IMO, it's common sense. I don't think the gender of the people involved has nothing to do with it.

The simple fact is that there is only one way to be sure your current SO isn't going to do something nasty with the nudie pics (or vids) you let them take -- and that's to not let them take any.

No one gets any judgement from me for making different choices than mine would be on this, and I think there's nothing wrong with bringing charges against someone who releases such things without permission.

On the other hand, the moment you make that kind of photo or video, there is a non-zero risk that it will wind up on the internet somehow, someday. This is a fact, and one that seems self-evident to me.

Thank you for saying what I meant so much more elegantly that I did. I'm not saying that what this guy did was ethically justifiable by any stretch of the imagination, just that it is not, strictly speaking, illegal.

An analogy: If you told a friend that you were a drug dealer, and then they later turned you in to the police, the courts would not care one iota that you had an "expectation of privacy" when you confessed to that friend. Yes, your "friend" is a jerk for ratting you out, but you're still an idiot for telling them in the first place.

Right... so I guess it's ok for your ex husband who you married and trusted for 20 years to post your private pictures and videos. Or maybe your bg/gf of 10 years to do the same.

I didn't say posing for nude pictures is a smart idea, but it's a fact of human nature that people do things for people they love that aren't always the wisest thing to do. Saying it's ok to post them because the person broke up with you, like the OP claims, is just wrong.

You seem to be arguing against a strawman here. No one said that what this guy did was "ok," only that trying to play this woman off as an "innocent victim" is misrepresenting the situation.

No, it's not.

Allowing somebody to take nude pictures of you is not wrong. No more than hitting an ATM and flashing cash, or getting wasted and passing out at a party. So no, she is still an innocent victim.

I didn't say posing for nude pictures is a smart idea, but it's a fact of human nature that people do things for people they love that aren't always the wisest thing to do. Saying it's ok to post them because the person broke up with you, like the OP claims, is just wrong.

You seem to be arguing against a strawman here. No one said that what this guy did was "ok," only that trying to play this woman off as an "innocent victim" is misrepresenting the situation.

Wow -- you really think that she is not an innocent victim? He decision to explore he sexuality with a lover makes her guilty? She's a fallen woman, so she's fair game?

I didn't say posing for nude pictures is a smart idea, but it's a fact of human nature that people do things for people they love that aren't always the wisest thing to do. Saying it's ok to post them because the person broke up with you, like the OP claims, is just wrong.

You seem to be arguing against a strawman here. No one said that what this guy did was "ok," only that trying to play this woman off as an "innocent victim" is misrepresenting the situation.

Wow -- you really think that she is not an innocent victim? He decision to explore he sexuality with a lover makes her guilty? She's a fallen woman, so she's fair game?

No, it could be more "she is stupid, so I want to see her punished."

That's not uncommon around these parts, and among nerdier types in general.

Though a dash of misogyny isn't unlikely either, since her stupidity was sex-related.

Somehow I suspect this would be a very different discussion thread if the genders were reversed in the same situation. I suspect it would suddenly be all the man's fault for being an idiot and the woman was just playing a harmless prank (which is just as ridiculous as the inverse).

It's funny that sexual assault was brought up, because it's not dissimilar to how sexual assault against a woman is (rightfully) a heinous crime, while sexual assault against a man is a punchline.

No one gets any judgement from me for making different choices than mine would be on this, and I think there's nothing wrong with bringing charges against someone who releases such things without permission.

On the other hand, the moment you make that kind of photo or video, there is a non-zero risk that it will wind up on the internet somehow, someday. This is a fact, and one that seems self-evident to me.

Thank you for saying what I meant so much more elegantly that I did. I'm not saying that what this guy did was ethically justifiable by any stretch of the imagination, just that it is not, strictly speaking, illegal.

So here is where 'all men' may use the redress of grievances. You should be able to bring suit to prove you have suffered some harm worthy to reward penalties, financial or otherwise.

So, I imagine the Ars reporter researched these sites in depth ... y' know, for science

Joking aside, this is asinine. With, perhaps, the exception for sites specifically and majoritively facilitating this type of harassment, there is no path of logic any sane and intelligent person could follow to honestly believe that generic and perfectly-legal porn sites are culpable.

It always amazes me how quickly someone can go from citing personal responsibility to screaming for a liability lawsuit in half a second or less. All it takes is as little inattention and one wet floor in a grocery store.

There is a difference between being to blame and your actions making something more likely.

Smoke and are you to blame for getting cancer (or giving it to someone). Not really but you made it more likely.

Drive and are you to blame for giving people breathing difficulties. Not really, but you made it more likely.

Take nude pics and they get leaked. Are you to blame. No, not unless you leaked them but you made it more likely since you can't leak something which doesn't exist.

Walk around around alone at night in almost no clothes. You're absolutely not to blame if you're assaulted or raped, but you are increasing your risk.

Do people just not understand that the world is horrible and full of horrible people and that it's sensible to take mitigating actions to reduce your risk of something unpleasant happening? I don't think the victim is ever* to blame for the evil actions of the other but that doesn't mean it's victim blaming to suggest practical ways to minimise the possibility of such evil actions being possible.

*except in cases where both parties may be partial victims, e.g. where a blackmailer is killed by their target, etc.

I don't think that's the case. Every decision in life is about managing risk. Sometimes you consciously think about it, sometimes not. There is always risk, risk of pain and death and embarrassment, as well as opportunity for joy and love and satisfaction. Balancing risk vs reward is a basic human trait, and trying to zero out risk usually means zeroing out reward.

Sometimes you believe with all your heart that you'll be with someone forever, so there is zero risk, sometimes you have a more pragmatic view but get swept up in passion or feel the trade-off is worth it. Sometimes you get screwed by a hidden camera, and have zero fault at all.

As a society we get to decide what risks we're willing to forgive and what risks we aren't. Most people inherently place risks done out of love as more forgivable than risks done out of hate, therefore the law is giving us more control on how our images can be distributed. That's it.

Somehow I suspect this would be a very different discussion thread if the genders were reversed in the same situation. I suspect it would suddenly be all the man's fault for being an idiot and the woman was just playing a harmless prank (which is just as ridiculous as the inverse).

It's funny that sexual assault was brought up, because it's not dissimilar to how sexual assault against a woman is (rightfully) a heinous crime, while sexual assault against a man is a punchline.

Not to everybody. I take male rape very seriously, and I take time to call people out for "prison rape lol" jokes in particular.

And revenge porn sites (such as isanybodydown) do feature males, and it's every bit as awful.

So perhaps the discussion would be different, perhaps it would not be. Some of us are consistent, though, so care to address my points?

It's entirely possible to say that Action A is a "bad idea," while still acknowledging that Action B (which takes advantage of the foolishness of Action A) can or should still be illegal or actionable.

The only problem I have with this position is that, in general, the acknowledgement of the foolishness of Action A will bring people out of the woodwork who will then use that foolishness to blame the victim, and excuse Action B.

If I visit an ATM in a bad part of town, and walk around flashing a fistful of cash, that is a bad idea. That does not excuse somebody for robbing me.

If I wear a short skirt and get wasted enough to pass out at a frat party, that is a bad idea. That does not excuse somebody for raping me.

If I allow somebody to take pictures with an expectation of privacy, that is a bad idea. That does not excuse them for posting them all over the internet.

Just because it's easy to do, and just because I know it would be easy to do, does not mean doing it is okay. Nor does it mean it can not or should not be actionable, or even illegal. Victim-blaming is bullshit.

EDIT: Note that I am not equating the three actions. That is not the point of the analogy. The severity of Action B, and the repercussions to whoever takes Action B, can and obviously should vary.

I don't get the feeling that there is much, if any, disagreement between you and I on this. But -

I just want to say that I have posted a similar comment with similar logic (essentially identical) to what I posted here on another forum, and it related specifically to a real-world case much like your second example.

You seem to get that my message was not one of victim blaming, and to understand that *acknowledging* the risky/enabling "action A" on the part of the victim is not the same as blaming the victim.

I just want to say *thanks* because the other thread turned into a bit of a dogpile, mostly due to the inability of a broad swath of folks to make this distinction.

I feel it depends on how the pictures were taken. If you send me a picture that picture is mine now and I should be able to do what I want with it. If the pictures were taken without her knowledge or stolen from her in some way then yes I agree that should be illegal.

If someone sends you a manuscript of their novel to review, do you get to publish it?

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.